5 ms·

Edit: I can't edit my post, perhaps due to the downvotes(why downvote without replying?), so here's a couple more. Tying Android App store to having Google sea

Edit: I can't edit my post, perhaps due to the downvotes(why downvote without replying?), so here's a couple more. Tying Android App store to having Google search engine as default on Android, ensuring that alternative search engines cannot be shipped as default. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/12/documents-shed-light-on-google-rules-for-android/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/12/documents-shed-light-... Stopping Acer from shipping Aliyun OS by threatening to pull the Play Store and Android beta access. Bonus points for enforcing this by the duplicitous moniker 'Open Handset Alliance' doublespeak http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/report-google-threatened-acer-forced-it-to-dump-rival-os/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/report-google-threate...

lucb1e 12y ago
Your profile is green (meaning new), maybe that's why you can't edit. I never noticed downvotes having anything to do with it. I found your post interesting and it contributes to the conversation, not sure why anyone would downvote (care to explain, downvoters?).
- DCKing 12y ago
  I did not downvote. But I disagree his post contributes to the conversation. Nobody believes the strawman argument that Google is a "benevolent company". Of course they are being assholes to make their services more used. Everyone is aware of that. Moreover, "Google is evil" => "Google wants to create a lock-in for Chrome or Android" is a total non sequitur. None of what is mentioned means or even implies that Google wants to create a vendor lock-in for Chrome and Android. Nothing in that list has to do with creating a platform lock-in at all. In fact, it shows that Google are being assholes mostly about their services. It is their services that bring in the money, and I think Google really does not care if you use Firefox, Chrome, iOS, Android or whatever. As long as you use their services. Posting a list like that does not contribute at all to the discussion about Google's alleged vendor lock-in. It only makes this a Google hate thread, and muffles proper discussion.
  - lucb1e 12y ago
    > Google really does not care if you use Firefox, Chrome, iOS, Android or whatever I think they do. Maybe it's not a huge deal, but it's an advantage to control more aspects of what users use (ISP, OS, browser, and finally the service itself). With Google Chrome they can make anything the way they want and support any feature they like, whereas with Firefox they'd have to wait for the guys at Mozilla to agree with something. Let's just name something silly: a pdf viewer that does OCR so that website authors can put relevant ads there if they want. I can see how Mozilla developers would sleep a night on that feature while for Google it would be a no-brainer that makes them money.
    - DCKing 12y ago
      > I think they do. Maybe it's not a huge deal, but it's an advantage to control more aspects of what users use (ISP, OS, browser, and finally the service itself). Fair enough. Make it "Google really does not care much if you use Firefox, Chrome, iOS, Android or whatever". The point is that even if Google prefers that you use Chrome, it's not an argument to go for vendor lock-in. It's an argument maybe for wanting to increase market share. This piece suggests that Google has motivation for breaking other platforms though, which I find ridiculous as it will only diminish their returns.
      - wfjackson 12y ago
        They do try to break other platforms, like refusing to make a YouTube app on Windows Phone and then sending a takedown on a Microsoft written app. YouTube and the content providers do get hurt with these actions but Google doesn't care because they're willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt Windows Phone. Even Vimeo has a Windows Phone app since many years. Also, interesting that this article seems to have completely disappeared off HN very suddenly.
        DCKing 12y ago
        > YouTube and the content providers do get hurt with these actions but Google doesn't care because they're willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt Windows Phone. This is false. Having third party apps that do not adhere to the ad- and video distribution policies hurts Google/YouTube's money sources. So they have valid reasoning - evil, yes, but valid. The browser app does follow YouTube's policies, so Google's reasoning here is still valid without breaking access to their platform. The browser and MetroTube still work, so it's not as if Google is actively breaking WP access to their services. They just did not accept Microsoft's "official" app. I do agree that Google should stop being such a scumbag about Windows and just make some apps for them. But "refusing to make an app" does not equate to "breaking another platform". There is/was no official YouTube app for BB10 or WebOS either, and Google is/was not trying to break them either.
findjashua 12y ago
You stated facts, with sources. I can't see why someone would downvote, and that too without stating the reason. I upvoted to counter at least one downvoter.
- personZ 12y ago
  They also created a new account to post a mixed list of random complaints. Sorry it's actually a repost given that this identical list was posted by angularfan -- also a fresh new account created purely to post this list -- 20 days ago. Is that really the behavior HN wants?
  - findjashua 12y ago
    didn't know that this was a repost of a previous post, in this case OP should've just linked to that. I stand corrected.
  - kybernetyk 12y ago
    > Is that really the behavior HN wants? He/She might have good reasons for anonymity. As long as the post contributes to the discussion I don't really care if the account is 10 years or 10 days old or if it has been posted 20 days ago.
    - personZ 12y ago
      It doesn't contribute to the discussion. It's a wall of noise hit list of entirely random quality, that draws absolute, nefarious conclusions from complex situations. If someone hates Google, then sure, it's "contributing". If you're just looking for information it's just extremist nonsense. Indeed, this very submission was already submitted a week ago (just as that hit list appeared before), and of course would have been blocked by HN as a dupe but made it through courtesy of the fun of querystrings.
      - stephenr 12y ago
        Right, because on a comment thread about google's ever-increasing control over the web/etc, the following are irrelevant: * A court case about breaching US federal privacy laws * A court case about Google using it's relationship with device manufacturers to negatively impact a company with a competing service * An article about how Google tracks mobile users and the disclosure/notification about said tracking, with input from the EFF * An article about how Google was less than open and transparent about the handling of an employee who spied on/stalked four underage users of Google services * Several articles about what are basically deceptive practices - paid inclusions, much less identifiable ads compared to organic search results and artificially increasing the search rank of it's own properties when a search mentions a specific competitor * An article about Google's decision to refuse any interaction with a news agency that posted an article discussing Google in relation to privacy concerns, in which they demonstrate the risks by publishing material about Eric Schmidt that was found via google searches But no, you are right. None of them are relevant. Remember what I said in another comment about cult-like status? Should I call Rick Ross for you?
cwyers 12y ago
Don't sweat the downvoters.

lucb1e 12y ago

Your profile is green (meaning new), maybe that's why you can't edit. I never noticed downvotes having anything to do with it. I found your post interesting and it contributes to the conversation, not sure why anyone would downvote (care to explain, downvoters?).

DCKing 12y ago
I did not downvote. But I disagree his post contributes to the conversation. Nobody believes the strawman argument that Google is a "benevolent company". Of course they are being assholes to make their services more used. Everyone is aware of that. Moreover, "Google is evil" => "Google wants to create a lock-in for Chrome or Android" is a total non sequitur. None of what is mentioned means or even implies that Google wants to create a vendor lock-in for Chrome and Android. Nothing in that list has to do with creating a platform lock-in at all. In fact, it shows that Google are being assholes mostly about their services. It is their services that bring in the money, and I think Google really does not care if you use Firefox, Chrome, iOS, Android or whatever. As long as you use their services. Posting a list like that does not contribute at all to the discussion about Google's alleged vendor lock-in. It only makes this a Google hate thread, and muffles proper discussion.
- lucb1e 12y ago
  > Google really does not care if you use Firefox, Chrome, iOS, Android or whatever I think they do. Maybe it's not a huge deal, but it's an advantage to control more aspects of what users use (ISP, OS, browser, and finally the service itself). With Google Chrome they can make anything the way they want and support any feature they like, whereas with Firefox they'd have to wait for the guys at Mozilla to agree with something. Let's just name something silly: a pdf viewer that does OCR so that website authors can put relevant ads there if they want. I can see how Mozilla developers would sleep a night on that feature while for Google it would be a no-brainer that makes them money.
  - DCKing 12y ago
    > I think they do. Maybe it's not a huge deal, but it's an advantage to control more aspects of what users use (ISP, OS, browser, and finally the service itself). Fair enough. Make it "Google really does not care much if you use Firefox, Chrome, iOS, Android or whatever". The point is that even if Google prefers that you use Chrome, it's not an argument to go for vendor lock-in. It's an argument maybe for wanting to increase market share. This piece suggests that Google has motivation for breaking other platforms though, which I find ridiculous as it will only diminish their returns.
    - wfjackson 12y ago
      They do try to break other platforms, like refusing to make a YouTube app on Windows Phone and then sending a takedown on a Microsoft written app. YouTube and the content providers do get hurt with these actions but Google doesn't care because they're willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt Windows Phone. Even Vimeo has a Windows Phone app since many years. Also, interesting that this article seems to have completely disappeared off HN very suddenly.
      - DCKing 12y ago
        > YouTube and the content providers do get hurt with these actions but Google doesn't care because they're willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt Windows Phone. This is false. Having third party apps that do not adhere to the ad- and video distribution policies hurts Google/YouTube's money sources. So they have valid reasoning - evil, yes, but valid. The browser app does follow YouTube's policies, so Google's reasoning here is still valid without breaking access to their platform. The browser and MetroTube still work, so it's not as if Google is actively breaking WP access to their services. They just did not accept Microsoft's "official" app. I do agree that Google should stop being such a scumbag about Windows and just make some apps for them. But "refusing to make an app" does not equate to "breaking another platform". There is/was no official YouTube app for BB10 or WebOS either, and Google is/was not trying to break them either.

findjashua 12y ago

You stated facts, with sources. I can't see why someone would downvote, and that too without stating the reason. I upvoted to counter at least one downvoter.

personZ 12y ago
They also created a new account to post a mixed list of random complaints. Sorry it's actually a repost given that this identical list was posted by angularfan -- also a fresh new account created purely to post this list -- 20 days ago. Is that really the behavior HN wants?
- findjashua 12y ago
  didn't know that this was a repost of a previous post, in this case OP should've just linked to that. I stand corrected.
- kybernetyk 12y ago
  > Is that really the behavior HN wants? He/She might have good reasons for anonymity. As long as the post contributes to the discussion I don't really care if the account is 10 years or 10 days old or if it has been posted 20 days ago.
  - personZ 12y ago
    It doesn't contribute to the discussion. It's a wall of noise hit list of entirely random quality, that draws absolute, nefarious conclusions from complex situations. If someone hates Google, then sure, it's "contributing". If you're just looking for information it's just extremist nonsense. Indeed, this very submission was already submitted a week ago (just as that hit list appeared before), and of course would have been blocked by HN as a dupe but made it through courtesy of the fun of querystrings.
    - stephenr 12y ago
      Right, because on a comment thread about google's ever-increasing control over the web/etc, the following are irrelevant: * A court case about breaching US federal privacy laws * A court case about Google using it's relationship with device manufacturers to negatively impact a company with a competing service * An article about how Google tracks mobile users and the disclosure/notification about said tracking, with input from the EFF * An article about how Google was less than open and transparent about the handling of an employee who spied on/stalked four underage users of Google services * Several articles about what are basically deceptive practices - paid inclusions, much less identifiable ads compared to organic search results and artificially increasing the search rank of it's own properties when a search mentions a specific competitor * An article about Google's decision to refuse any interaction with a news agency that posted an article discussing Google in relation to privacy concerns, in which they demonstrate the risks by publishing material about Eric Schmidt that was found via google searches But no, you are right. None of them are relevant. Remember what I said in another comment about cult-like status? Should I call Rick Ross for you?

cwyers 12y ago

Don't sweat the downvoters.